rosecuho a vt the : Te al | : 





Library of the 
University of North Garolina 


Endowed by the Dialectic and Philan- 


thropic Societies 





ie? 






WM) HON. ALFRED M. WADDELL, 





Of Counsel for Prosecution, 


e 


f|| TRIAL OP Dk. EUGENE GRISSOM, 


Supt. of the N.C. Insane Asylum, ; 





JULY 18, 1889. 
a 
a 
RAGE LGHe ees 
E. M. UZZELL, STEAM PRINTER AND BINDER. 
, é ; pi be 
1889. . 
=< ra mg < - 
RE, sf 2 : ; Lee < ews 
| ee "a _. a POR AAS SB 
/ as 
‘; a ae ek. e eg sca . es 
pW, 2 ee t 
eT coal x f 


1 
M) 
: 
‘ 
) 
? 
\ 











Pe ad 


oy gy Bah Gils Baas 


Mr. President and Gentlemen : 


Wearied as you necessarily are by your long continued sit=~ 
tings in this investigation, and satiated, as you must be, with 
discussion, I feel that in closing this debate I should be as brief 
as duty will permit, and such will be my aim. Further argu- 
ment may be unnecessary, but a summary of the leacing facts, 
and a reply to what has been said in behalf of the respondent, 
may possibly help you toward a just determination of the issues 
presented, and is necessary to a proper discharge of the duty de- 
volving upon me. 

Gentlemen, when I left my home in answer to the call for my 
services in this case it was with the honest hope that the accused 
might establish his innocence of all the very grave charges which 
had been brought against him—a hope based not obly upon that 
regard for the honor and welfare of my native State which 
ought to inspire all of her sons, but also upon a kindly senti- 
ment arising out of an acquaintance with Dr. Grissom from my 
boyhood. I came with a judicial mind, and the first words I 
said to my associate counsel upon my arrival were that if the 
allegation that a conspiracy existed to destroy the accused was 
Se by the evidence would be the first person to denounce 

Alas! sirs, this allegation of conspiracy, upon which his de- 
ae is based, has dwindled into a fruitless. attempt to excuse 
himself from responsibility for the offences alleged” against him 
by showing that another for whom he was responsible has also 
been guilty of as great offences. The allegation is more than 
fruitless. It is admitted to be untrue so far as John W. Thomp- 
son is concerned. Not one of the counsel for Dr. Grissom has 
ventured to utter a word reflecting upon the character or the 
motives of Mr. Thompson. He stands before you—the defendant 


and his connsel themselves bearing witness to the fact—an hon- 
orable, kind, intelligent, big-hearted, generous man, who would 
scorn a mean acts and they but echo the universal voice of all. 
who know him when they attribute to him such a character. 
Recognizing the force of this pregnant fact, and driven to the — 
necessity of finding some sufficient motive for Mr. Thompson to 
engage in what they have persistently and vociferously declared 
to be a wicked and malicious conspiracy, they say that this big, 
strong, honest and sensible man has been led into it like an im- 
becile by the wily hand of young Dr. Rogers—that, like the 
Moor of Venice, he opened his ears to the poisonous words of 
this Iago, until they drove him blindly to do a desperate deed. 
Ah! gentlemen, there was a Desdemona in this case, but John 
W. Thompson had no interest in her—there was jealousy, as 
testified to by one of the defendant’s own witnesses, but- the 
green-eyed monster never fastened his fangs upon the heart of 
John W. Thompson. There was nothing in that heart upon 
which a cunning Iago could play until it was lashed into fary, 
John W. Thompson had nothing to gain by prosecuting Dr. 
Grissom, even if he was convicted, while he had everything to 
lose if he was acquitted. He already had all he could hope to 
get at the Asylum. He had been the Steward for eight years, 
and, being in good repute with everybody, could continue to 
hold the position as long as he pleased. He knew that Dr. 
Grissom wielded a wide-spread and powerful influence all 
over the State, and that in arraying him before this Board and 
the people of North Carolina he was assaulting one who for 
years had exhausted every resource of a fertile brain in fortify-_ 
ing his position. He fully realized the situation, and yet, with 
a heroism seldom exhibited under such circumstances, he man- 
fully marched out with the banner of truth and purity and 
Justive in his hand to fight the battle- -single;handed if necessary, 
in behalf of the good people of North Carolina. He repudi- 


ates with contempt the allegation that he is the victim of the | 


cunning wiles of Dr, Rogers or anybody else. He said frankly — 
while on the witness stand, in answer to the question of counsel 


3 


why he had so long delayed action in this matter, that it was 
one of. the sins he had to answer for. He stood what he knew 
was going on in this institution as long as he could, but, when 
he became satisfied that it was being transformed into a harem, 
and the evidence of it was becoming plainer each day, he could 
and would stand it no longer, and resolved to expose these 
iniquities to the public gaze. He is no tool in the hands of Dr. 
Rogers! He is no fool or weakling, but a man, every inch of 
him, mentally, morally, and physically, a man who fears God 
and speaks the truth, and who would wrong no human being 
intentionally. 

The counsel who opened this discussion, speaking of the history 
of this institution in connection with a eulogistic biography of Dr. 
Grissom, said that ‘the unhallowed hands of political partisan- 
ship had never been and would never be placed upon it, and he 
alluded to that sad period of the history of North Carolina — 
directly after the war when she was humbled in the dust. This 
was an unfortunate reference, indeed, for his client, and it re- 
lieves me from any obligation not to refer to a subject to which 
otherwise I would have made no allusion. Does counsel sup- 
pose that the people of North Carolina have forgotten or ever 
will forget those days, or the part that his client played in them? 
- Is he trying to remind us that Dr. Grissom enjoyed the distin- 
guished honor of presiding over the first convention of those 
who took possession after the war, and organized hell in our 
State? Does he remember how that good man and venerable 
physician, Dr. Fisher, was displaced from the superintendency of 
this institution? How, after much dirty intrigue, the first 
notice Dr. Fisher received of his removal was when that “hair- 
less Celt,” Tim Lee, the carpet-bag sheriff of Wake county, ap- 
peared at the door of this institution and notified him to get 
out, as Grissom was ready to take charge? Verily, it cannot be 
denied that for nineteen years past the hands of political par- 
tisanship have not been laid upon this institution when they 
might very well have been, and no living man has such cause to 
be grateful for it as Dr. Grissom. 


+ 


All this is irrelevant to this case, but so was the biographical 
sketch of Dr. Grissom as a mason and a physician, which coun- 
sel read, and it is to complete the biography which he left un- 
finished that I add these little items. 


Gentlemen, when the shock of this great scandal startled the 


people of North Carolina they, with that spirit of fairness and 
enlightened justice which has always characterized them, turned 
their gaze anxiously towards this capital and waited for the testi- 
mony before forming a judgment in the case. 

Since the testimony has been given that look has hardened 
into one of stern determination, and the hot breath of their 
righteous indignation fills the air. The thanks of the peo- | 
ple of North Carolina are justly due, and I am sure will be - 
cordially given, to those who have unearthed these wrongs, and - 
especially are they due to the able, and faithful, and indefatiga- 
ble counsel with whom I have the honor to be associated here, 
for the valuable service he has rendered to them, and to the 
cause of good government. They have experienced a humilia-— 
tion in the discovery that rottenness exists at the very core of 
their system of charities, but while they wince beneath the blade — 
that cuts it out they will bless the hand that guides that blade. ‘eg 
North Carolina has been stabbed before, but thank God the blow: 
has generally come from alien hands. . If she has beena lageard 
in the race of so-called progress, she has been still slower in ac- 
quiring some of the baser arts that accompany it. It has been 
her chief glory throughout her whole history, in peace or war, 
that those to whom she confided her honor have been faithful to 
their trust. Accursed be the day that shall usher in a change of 
destiny for her in this respect! I sincerely trust that the de- 


velopments made during the progress of this investigation may. - 


be promptly followed by a searching examination into every 
other public institution in the State, and that all who are in- 
trusted with any public duty may be continually held to the © 
most rigid accountability. By this means only can purity and — 


honesty of administration be secured, and the public interests be 
protected. 


5) 


Surely, surely, if there was one institution in our State where 
the people had a right to expect to find a pure and humane ad- 
ministration’; if there was, within all her wide borders, one spot 
where they might justly hope to see prevailing the virtues which 
have elevated and ennobled our race, it was here, where, by awful : 
contrast, God’s lesson of RESPONSIBILITY is hourly taught. But 
those who have so trusted 





and they were the great body of the 
people—have been rudely awakened to a realization of the fact 
that even in this sanctuary of the afflicted the trail of the ser- 
pent has been made, and that its chosen High Priest—he who 
should have been its faithful servitor and guardian—has yielded 
to the tempter and done grievous wrong to them, to this asylum 
and hiinself, 

Am I using the language of exaggeration? Let us see. 

It is not my purpose to discuss at any length the second and 
third charges—cruelty to patients and the misappropriation of 
property—because they have been the theme of my associate’s 
powerful and exhaustive argument; but I will refresh your 
memory a little in regard to them, beginning with. the last 
charge, and taking them, as Gov. Jarvis did, in reverse order. 

Counsel affected to treat with contempt the allegation that Dr. 
Grissom had misappropriated the property of the institution, and 
asked if we would not abandon that charge astrivial. I replied 
that we abandoned nothing, for we had proved all, but that, 
speaking for myself, I would say that the actual amount of mis- 
appropriation, showed by their own witnesses, was not so large, 
when compared with the enormity of the other offences, as to de- 
mand a great share of our attention. It is to be remembered 
that the amount of these peculations is exclusively within the 
knowledge of the accused and his immediate friends, and that all 
we could hope to establish was the fact that @ system of pecula- 
tion had long existed, and to prove it by such particulars as we 
could get out of his witnesses. Well, did we prove the system 
and the particulars? Did we not prove that, in regard to some 
matters, the Superintendent and matron actually ordered the 
housekeeper to make a false report? Did we not prove that out 


of 3,000 bunches of celery raised here only 1,444 bunches were 
given to theépatients, and the rest were disposed of in some other, 
way? Did we not prove that out of 90 turkeys raised and 
bought last year the patients only got 35, while Dr. Grissom got 
41, leaving 14 still here? Did we not prove that liquors in con- 
siderable quautities, and on numerous occasions, were sent away 
from the institution? And did we not prove that, in addition — 
to the acknowledged debt of $500 for supplies, due for two years, 
other supplies were sent to the Superintendent’s table, and en- 
tered on the books as “light diet” for the patients? How much 
of this sort of thing has been done we don’t know, and have no 
means of ascertaining, but the law forbids any of it; and how 
you can say that Dr. Grissom has not misappropriated the prop- 
erty of the institution I do not understand.’ The people of North 
Carolina are willing to be taxed for the benefit of the insane, but 
they are not willing to submit to taxation for the benefit of Dr. 

Grissom and his friends. 

But this charge of misappropriation, established as it is, al- 
most sinks into insignificance by the side of the other two 
charges of cruelty and immorality. 

The history of the treatment of the insane and the manage- 
ment of asylums has been learnedly and ably discussed by my 
associate, and the cases named in the specifications under the sec- 
ond charge here have been dwelt upon by him at great length. 
I shall, therefore, not occupy much of your time with them, but 
will confine myself to only two or three of them, in a brief and 
general way, in reply to what has been said in defence of Dr. 
Grissom. As to the advisability of the use of some sort of me- 
chanical restraint (for the prevention of injury to themselves or 
other inmates) upon the violent and dangerous insane, it is not 
worth while to enter into any argument. ‘here is a difference 
of opinion among alienists, however, even as to such cases. In 
Europe and in many institutions in this country such restraint is 
entirely abolished. Nowhere is such restraint ever used as pun- 
ishment. To punish an insane person is to commit an act Fe 
wholly inexcusable brutality, and ought to be everywhere, as it 


7 ‘ A ? 


is in England, a statutory misdemeanor. In the cases brought 
to your attention in which Dr. Grissom is charged with e¢ruelty 
‘it has not been pretended that the patients were strapped to pre-_ 
vent them. from doing injury. In, every instance, except one, 
the strapping was done after the cause of it had passed. Accord- 
ing to Grissom’s own statement it is clear that such was the case 
‘in regard to Miss Foy, Henry Cone, J. D. L. Smith, Mrs. Over- 
man, Mrs. Lowther, and Upchurch, not to mention the minor 
cases. Dr. Grissom said that in every case what he did was in- 
tended not as punishment—oh! no, perish the thought!—but_ 
“to make a deep mental impression as to the impropriety of their 
conduct” ! 
Well, that isa pitiful juggling with words. One of the pur- 
poses of all punishment is to make a deep mental impression as 
to the impropriety of doing the thing for which the punishment 
is inflicted. But with an insane person what does a deep men- 
tal. impression of this kind amount to? Mr. Guthrie, the able 
lawyer, who testified (for Dr. Grissom) as to his own treatment 
and that of others while he was temporarily insane and an in- 
mate of this institution, and whose statement was s0 interesting, 
said that while he knew and remembered everything that oc- 
curred perfectly well, he could not control himself at all; and 
so it is with other igsane persons. ‘They are keenly alive to any 
indignity or injury done to them, but, although conscious that 
they may incur it, they cannot help themselves; and, therefore, 
such “deep mental impression” as Dr. Grissom inflicted upon 
them could not prevent the “impropriety” from occurring 
again, while it only aggravated their sufferings. . But it so hap- 
pened, as confessed by Dr. Grissom, that in several of these in- 
stances the “deep mental impression” was made by him when 
very angry with the patient. He says in regard to one 
of them that he “was powerfully overcome by anger” upoi re- 
ceiving an insulting note from the patient, and proceeded 
thereupon—not to punish him, oh! no, certainly not—but to 
make ‘a deep mental impression upon him” by applying his 
machine of torture for some hours. In fact, it does not appear 


8 : 
in any case that he did this in the cool, dispassionate spirit of a 
ministering physician, or even with that degree of pitying.sym- — 
pathy with which he kissed Mrs. Perkinson. Her sorrows - 
touched his heart, it seems, but their hopeless affliction was not 
even a shield against his violence. Is not this fact enough of 
itself to show that Dr. Grissom is not a fit man for his position? 
His “deep mental impressions,” too, according to the witnesses, 
produced po beneficial effect upon those who were subjected to: 
them, but, on the contrary, in Smith’s case, at least, they made 
him worse—or, as one of the witnesses testified, “ meaner ””—than 
he was before. Is it not remarkable that, even in the cases 
where Dr. Grissom admits the “deep mental impression” dodge 
was played, he denies that the occurrence took place as de- 
scribed by the witnesses, in each and every one of them? Two 
unimpeached and unimpeachable witnesses (Mr. D. K. Farrell 
and Mr. J. A. Norwood) swore that he choked Henry Cone 
severely and threw water in his faee—the former testifying to 
such an occurrence in 1885, and the latter to a similar one in 
1887, when he also put his foot on him. But Grissom, while 
admitting the throwing of the water, denied the choking, and. 
told ns that ridiculous story about his placing his hands on the 
sides of Cone’s neck to hold him off, and stop the congestion. 
He threatened to kick Smith, abused him, told him he ought to 
be in the penitentiary, and had him strapped a long time, be- 
cause he wrote him an insulting note; but this was not punish- 
ment, he says, for he wouldn’t punish a patient; it was only to 
make “a mental impression as to the impropriety of his con- 
duct.” Old Mrs, Lowther, a poor, feeble, old woman, spat at or 
abused him, according to the report of an attendant, and he had 
her strapped to the bed in that position of torture for two days, 
and two hours after she was released she died, and no report of the - 
cause of her death was made, although all other deaths with the 
cause of death are invariably reported. It has been asserted, or 
intimated, that the strapping had nothing to do with her 
death, and that she died of heart disease. Why, then, was it not 
so reported? And, if it was heart disease, is it not the most 


reasonable conclusion that it was produced by her struggles to 
free herself from the terrible restraint and the result of conges- 
tion? I will spare you the contemplation of such a picture as 
might be drawn of that aged woman, writhing in the harness 
which bound her to the rack, and the supposition that she was 
your mother or wife, but will leave that.to your imagination. 
And now, gentlemen, one steady look for a moment at Up- 
church’s case, and I will leave the second charge in this arraign- 
mept. 

Something was said about melon by counsel on the other 
side. Why did not Dr. Grissom come out like a man at the 
beginning of this investigation and confess his guilt as to 
Upehurch’s case? Why did counsel wait until driven to the wall 
by overwhelming proof before they admitted that he had perpe- 
trated that infamous outrage ? And why, when thus driven to 
the wall, did they despairingly turn around and try to throw 
the blame of this confessedly inexcusable crime upon Mr. 
Thompson ? 

A wretched maniac is thrown to the floor by three strong 
men, who hold him powerless on his back, and this gentle and 
humane Superintendent walks up to him, and, with the weight 
of his two hundred pounds of flesh, stamps him in the face, say- 
ing: “ You d—d son of a: , how does that feel 2”? And the 
only thing counsel have to say is that if John W. Thompson 
had gone'to his assistance it would not have happened!! I re- 
fuse to dignify such a pitiful plea—a plea so insulting to your 





common sense—with any argument, but will leave it to your 
comrniseration. 
, And now, although counsel have affected to pooh! beioli it, 
and whistle it down the wind as of no consequence, I will pro- 
ceed to discuss the gravest charge brought against Dr. Grissom. 
The first charge against Dr. Grissom is that he has been guilty 
‘of gross immorality in connection with the female attendants of 
the institution, and others. Has this charge been sustained by 
the evidence adduced? We introduced three witnesses to prove 
it in the case of Miss Burch, and two witnesses to prove it in re- 


10 


gard to others. Each of these witnesses (except the poor colored 
boy, Emanuel Jones) has established a character for veracity by 
the mouths of many witnesses, and each swore absolutely and 
unequivocally to the facts in the respective cases named in the 
specifications. How does the accused meet this proof? By a 
denial of the facts and an attempt to discredit the witnesses. He 
was the first witness in his own behalf, and, taking the charges 
and specifications seriatim, he flatly denies every damaging 
statement of the witnesses for the prosecution in regard to each 
and every one of them. It is, gentlemen, manifest that there 
has been an immense amount of false swearing in this case by 
somebody.’ There has been lying by wholesale and retail either 
against or in behalf of the accused. There has been no room — 
for mere differences of memory or judgment. The unmistakable 
odor of perjury is perceptible in the atmosphere of this case. 

Whence does it come? With sincere sorrow I ask you if the 
evidence does not justify the belief that some of it, at least, 
comes from those lips whose sympathetie touch was so gratefully 
received, as they themselves tell us, by the wife of an humble 
employee of this institution—from those lips, which, kindling 
with an increasing fervor, sought again and again, as that wife 
tells us, to meet her own—which asked her to dishonor herself, 
her husband and her sick child by becoming a prostitute, and 
which, when that proposition was indignantly rejected, pitifully 
begged that she would not tell her husband, and offered hush- 
money to secure secrecy—from those lips which also “sympa- 
thized” so strongly with a seventeen-year-old girl who was an 
attendant, that when sick in bed she was solicited by them to 
submit to a kiss first, and afterwards to personal degradation— 
aye, gentlemen, from those lips which, fresh from contact with 
the volume of God’s Holy Seripture, by which they swore to 
speak “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” 
denied the truth of almost every material allegation sworn to. by 
a cloud of respectable witnesses? 

In regard to the first charge, that of immorality, he positively 
swore that it is absolutely false in every particular under every 


I] 


specification, only admitting that he had kissed Mrs. Perkinson 
one time when she was in trouble, “out of sympathy.” As to 
Miss Edwards, he swore that her testimony was a “a tissue of 
falsehoods from beginning to end,” with the exceptiom of one 
immaterial fact, and he swore that the testimony in regard to 
Miss Burch was wholly untrue. So that he makes a general de- 
nial of the whole and a special denial of each particular allega- 
tion. : 

I shall invite your attention for a few minutes to the testi- 
mony of Miss Edwards. It would be uncandid in me if I did not 
say to you at the outset that I recognize the fact that the discov- 
ery and publication of Dr. Rogers’ letter was calculated to dis- 
credit any testimony of which he might be supposed to be the 
originator, or any young woman with whom he might be sup- 
posed to be on terms of intimacy. And yet, when you come to 
consider with fairness and justice all the facts sworn to by Miss 
Edwards, and all the facts offered for the purpose of discrediting 
her, it is impossible to disregard her testimony. She is a young 
person, she is very sprightly and pretty, and correspondingly 
giddy. She was manifestly a cause of jealousy between two men, 
and openly declared, according to Mrs. Williams’ testimony, 
that she and one of these men were “sweethearts.” The other 
and older man tried to take liberties with her, which she re- 
sented ; then finally, when the fight came between these two men, 
she came here and told what she knew against the one whom she 
disliked. That is about the sum of it. In regard to some trifling 
matters she was contradicted, it is true, but they were matters 
about which it was perfectly natural, and, I may say, legitimate, 
for her to conceal the truth. She met Mr. R. H. Whitaker on 
the train, and he says she spoke highly of Dr. Grissom, and said 
she expected to return to the Asylum. Mr. Whitaker was an 
utter stranger to her—she had never seen him before. Is it to ° 
be supposed she would have unbosomed herself about what Dr. 
Grissom had done to this perfect stranger, who only rode a few 
miles with her on the train ? 


12 


The only other matter about which unfavorable comment 
could be made was her introducing Dr. Rogers under a false 
name to Mrs, Williams; and remember Mrs. Williams herself 
says that Miss Edwards excused herself for this upon the ground 
that there was jealousy about her, and she didn’t want it known 
that Rogers had visited her there. 

She openly declared to Mrs. Williams that Rogers was her_ 
sweetheart, and she didn’t care who knew it. I must confess that, 
such being the case, it is not very surprising to me to learn that 
Rogers was seen with his arm around her waist, but I would 
rather have some other proof of it than the word of a woman who 
said she saw it on a pitch black, rainy night, just after leaving a 
bright light. I don’t mention the other witness, young Williams, 
who peeped through the blinds, because counsel insist that a 
man who will peep, like King did, ought not to be believed on 
oath. Perhaps there may be a difference in the degree of credi- 
bility to be attached. to one who peeps through blinds from that 
due to one who peeps through a key-hole, although I do not re- 
member to have seen it laid down in any work on evidence ; but 
I will be more liberal than the counsel, and say frankly that I 
have no doubt Rogers actually did sit on the sofa with his arm 
around her. It seems to me that I’ve heard of sweethearts. 
doing that before. But, gentlemen, does that involve any sete 
turpitude in the young lady ? 

Are you prepared to say that any young lady who will permit 
her sweetheart to put bis arm around her waist thereby justifies 
the suspicion that she is devoid of truth and virtue? Hardly. © 
And yet this is the very worst thing that has been proved against 
Miss Edwards, and on the strength of it you are asked to say 
that all the evidence she has given in this case is false. Dr. 
Grissom swore it was “a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to 
end,” and yet, as my associate so clearly demonstrated to you, he 
himself corroborates her testimony in regard to his cruelty to 
patients. Why should it not be true as to his attempts upon her 
virtue? She.is the daughter of a respectable physician, and has 
proved by a number of witnesses an excellent character, and she’ 


15 


says that Dr. Grissom on several occasions made these improper 
advances to her. Counsel ridiculed as palpably false her state- 
ment that Grissom talked to her about running away with him, 
and says the idea of a man of his position, with a family, run- 
ning away with a girl is absurd on the face of it. Certainly it 
would be absurd, and I have no idea that Dr. Grissom ever con- 
templated any such thing, but whether he tried to make her be- 
lieve he would in order to accomplish a purpose is quite another 
matter, and not so absolutely incredible on the face of it. With 
this brief notice of Miss Edwards’ testimony, I pass on to what I 
consider a more important matter. ; 

Now let us for a few minutes consider the case of Mrs. Per- 
kinson. Dr. Grissom says she told the truth about his kissing 
her “through sympathy,” but that she swore falsely as to the 
other kissings and attempts at kissing. He admits that his first 
kiss was unfortunate, and I think everybody will agree with him. 
It was very unfortunate—it was, in fact, a calamitous osculation, 
because it stirred from his lair the devil of lust, who from that 
hour began to exhibit himself whenever Mrs. Perkinson came 
into Dr. Grissom’s presence. Hear the pitiful story of this poor 
woman as gathered from the testimony. (Colonel Waddell then 
read the testimony of Mrs. Perkinson). Harassed by poverty— 
seeing not far from her door that gaunt spectre in whose pres- 
ence the stoutest heart will quail—with her husband unem- 
ployed, and knowing not where to turn for help—she goes to 
Dr. Grissom and with tearful pleadings appeals to him to give 
her husband work by which he might feed his little ones. 

Unable to resist her earnest prayers, and yielding to the better 
instincts of his nature, he complies with her request—and if he 
had dismissed her with words of kindness only it would have 
saved him a load of misery. But right then and there the 
tempter entered into his heart, and drove him to the first act of 
what he hoped would bea career of pleasure, but which has proved 
to beatragedy. It whispered to him, “ Nowis your time to feel the 
way; kiss her through sympathy and if she takes it kindly you 
can kiss her again, and go on kissing her.’ He did kiss her 


14 
through sympathy, as she thought, and as he says, and receiving 
no rebuke for it, he felt that the case started out well and there 
was a good time ahead of him; but 
“Oh! what a tangled web we weave 
When first we practice to deceive.” | 

It was the Genesis of an Iliad of woes for him. I will not 
go over all the story told by Mrs. Perkinson. You remember 
it, and the minuteness with which Mrs. Perkinson gave her evi- 
dence, and you also remember—what is quite as important— 
her demeanor on the witness stand; and you cannot forget that 
a large number of highly respectable witnesses gave her not only 
a good character, but a remarkably high character from her 
childhood to this hour. Several gentlemen who knew her when — 
they were students at Wake Forest College and she was at Mrs. 
Purefoy’s school testified that she was always remarked upon for 
her singular modesty and lady-like deportment, and some of 
them, especially Mr. Holding and Mr. Denmark, said they 
knew her general character to be as good now as it was then, 
the latter saying that it was as good as that of any lady in 
North Carolina. 

And yet, gentlemen, you saw the pitiful attempt made in her 
case, as in that of other important witnesses, to discredit her and 
make it appear that she, too, was swearing to a lie. . The only 
witness was an old lady who disliked Mrs. Perkinson’s family 
because her brother had run away with and married the old 
lady’s daughter. This old lady said she didn’t think Mrs. 
Perkinson’s character was very good, and was allowed to leave 
the witness stand without cross-examination, because we knew 
what we could prove to the contrary. The last witness, you 
will remember, said that only last Sunday he heard a large 
number of the women at the church where Mrs. Perkinson used 
to attend expressing astonishment that any one should assail her 
character. | 

You have no right to consider what counsel said he expected 
to prove by a witness about Mrs. Perkinson, because the testi- 
mony was excluded. Counsel ought not to have said it, but as 


15 


he did, I will say that I ain authorized to assert that if the wit- 
ness had sworn to it he would have lied. 

Well, here, gentlemen, you have a woman who has proved as 
good a character as any lady in North Carolina, swearing that 
Dr. Grissom, after kissing her, as she thought, through sym- 
pathy for her distress (which he admits to be true), tried after- 
wards to take liberties with her—and Dr. Grissom swearing 
that it is absolutely false. I do not care to dwell om this speci- 
fication farther than to say thar I never in my life saw a woman 
on the witness stand whose whole conduct and demeanor was 
more modest and lady-like, whose story was told with more 
simple naturalness, and who sustained herself better under a 
severe cross-examination than Mrs. Perkinson did. She is a 
poor woman who makes an honest living by hard work, and is 
respected by her neighbors, according to the testimony. If she 
has told the truth, is it not doubly hard’ on her and doubly 
infamous in Dr. Grissom to first attempt to seduce her, and, fail- 
ing in that, to attempt to blacken her character when she tes- 
tifies against him ? . 

And now, gentlemen, I will proceed to consider the first speci- 
fication under the first charge. I confess that there is an inex- 
pressible sadness about the case of Miss Burch from any point 
of view, and there are horrors suggested by it that are enough to 
sicken the soul. In dealing with it I realize the impotency of 
any language at my command. I feel as if I was entering a 
charnel house, and being forced to commit an act of desecration, 
and this, too, upon any theory of the evidence. And yet, gen- 
-tlemen, I cannot drive away the thought which haunts me that if 
she is conscious of these proceedings, which God forbid, even the 
shame with which they will overwhelm her will be swallowed up 
in the satisfaction of knowing that retribution has overtaken him 
who wrought her ruin. How lame, and how poor and weak is 
the story told by the accused to explain away the evidence of 
-Mr. King and Emanuel Jones and Mr. West in regard to what 
occurred in the matron’s bedroom! Having listened to all they 
said before going himself upon the witness stand, and knowing 


16 


that a simple denial would not answer, and having abundant 
time to invent a theory and abundant capacity to do so, he tells 
a tale that he thinks will fit the facts sworn to. | 

Ah! gentlemen, it was ingenious, but it will not do. It lacks 
those elements of probability which are absolutely necessary to 
carry conviction against such direct and positive testimony. 

Let us dissect this story. He says this poor lady consulted 
him as to a complaint incident to her sex; that he had reason to 
attribute it to a certain cause which required a private examina- - 
tion; that he made other examinations, generally in the matron’s 
room, the matron sometimes being present in the adjoining room, 
and sometimes not; that he applied the necessary remedy and 
relieved the trouble to some extent, but not entirely, and that 
he never committed the act with which he is charged in regard 
to her. : 

You will observe that, acorn to. this statement, the wit- 
nesses (King, Jones and West) are corroborated, so far as their 
evidence as to Dr. Grissom’s and Miss Burch’s visits to the 
matron’s room is concerned, and also as to the matron’s absence 
at the time, because he admits that his private examinations 
of Miss Burch generally occurred in the matron’s room, and 
that sometimes the matron was absent. There is no con- 
flict between their testimony and his as to those two facts. On 
the contrary, his admission directly supports what they said. So 
that out of the three facts, viz.: that they went together to the 
matron’s room, that she was absent, and that the occurrence took 
place there, two are proven; and as to the other fact—the act 
done—we have the oaths of two eye-witnesses against the oath 
of the party charged with the act, and, of course, vitally inter- 
ested in disproving it. 

Now the rules of evidence and the dictates of common sense 
demand that unless it has been shown that Mr. King and 
Emanuel Jones are wholly unworthy of credit—that they ought 
not and cannot be believed on oath when testifying to a fact 
which they say they saw with their own eyes, and in regard to 
which there appears no motive for them to swear falsely—this 


‘ea 


‘ 


/ \ 


Board or any other tribunal. before which such testimony is de- 
livered would not be justified in refusing to believe it. 

Is there any evidence before you to show that Mr. King is a 
man who is unworthy of credit? On the contrary, has he not 
proved by some of the most respectable citizens of the State that 
he is a man of unimpeachable character? He is, to be sure, only 
a poor mechanic who makes an honest living by the sweat of his 
brow, and perhaps it may be a great crime for an humble man 
like him to testify against a man of influence and power like Dr. 
Grissom; but he was a brave Confederate soldier who fought 
four years for the honor of North Carolina, and his neighbors 
and all who know him say he is honest and truthful, and that no 
man can impeach him on that score. 

One ground of attack on him by counsel was, that seeing a sus- 
picious state of things, he took the only means of verifying his 
suspicions by peeping through a key-hole, and they denounce 
such conduct as incompatible with the character of an honest and 
truthful man. Counsel grew eloquent in their scorn of such an 
act, and said that no man who will do it is worthy of belief under 
oath, and yet I venture to say that they would not apply that 
rule to every adulterer, for instance. But which of the two 
acts is it that necessarily makes its perpetrator a liar? It is no 
crime, it is no violation of law, human or divine, to peep through 
a key-hole, but it is a violation of both human and divine law 
to commit adultery. If, therefore, adultery does not disqualify 
aman to speak the truth (and counsel will not say that), why 
should peeping through a key-hole do so? It will not do to say 
that although Mr. King proves as good a character for truth and 
honesty as any man can, yet you must believe that he has come 
here and perjured his soul simply and solely because, suspecting 
a wrong, he peeped through a key-hole to ascertain the truth of 
his suspicion. It was not polite or refined to do it, to be sure, 
and probably neither of you would do it, but it is not a crime, 
and it doesn’t follow that because King did it he cannot be be- 
lieved on oath, notwithstanding he has proved a good character. 


2 


18 


But they say it was a physical impossibility for King and the 
boy Jones to see what they said they saw; and counsel got an ex- 
pert to come here and examine the locality about dusk one 
evening last week, and to take measurements from the key-hole, 
and so forth. They introduced the expert (Mr. Ashley) and 
his drawings with an air of satisfaction that was pleasant to be- 
hold, and they questioned him minutely as to the lines of vision 
from the key-hole, and how much of the bed in the matron’s 
room could be seen, and the like. But when my associate 
finished cross-examining Mr. Ashley and you had all gone to 
the key-hole, and looked for yourselves, how much was left of 
the argument about the physical impossibility of seeing such an 
occurrence as King and the boy swore to? Not ashred. They 
said King could not possibly have seen from the stage, whether 
the door of the matron’s sitting-room was open or shut, and 
that he couldn’t hear it shut from there; and yet the expert 
said that, although he thought upon his examination late in the 
evening that such was the case, he found upon second trial, at a 
different time of day, that both were quite possible. According 
to the careful measurements of their own expert, too, it ap- 
peared that the least space on the bed visible from the key- 
hole was 114 inches near the foot, and the greatest space (I be- 
dieve) 274 inches in the middle of the bed, as placed now. 
This would have been amply sufficient for the sight King said 


he saw, but it appears that the bed was a small iron one on. 


rollers, and nobody can say that it might not have been ex- — 
actly in the position described by the witnesses, which was just 
as probably its position as any other. But you all have’in- 
spected the premises for yourselves; you have examined with 
your own eyes, and there is not a member of the Board who 
does not know perfectly well that so far from being a physical 
impossibility it was a very easy matter for a man looking 
through the key-hole to ascertain in a second what was going on 
in that room. Do you believe that, without motive to do 
such a thing, a man who can prove a good character would 
come before this Board, or any other tribunal, and deliberately 


19 


swear to a lie for the purpose of ruining an innocent man? 
What motive has been shown in this case? None whatever. 
The only attempt to show a motive in King that. has been 
made was so utterly inadequate to that purpose as to excite a 
smile. It was this: that just before these charges were filed, in 
an interview with Dr. Grissom, and when the latter had per- 
sisted in asking him a question many times over, King got mad _ 
and told him he must not ask him again! And you are asked 

believe from this that a sufficient motive existed to induce 
King to come here and commit perjury by swearing to a fact 
which never occurred ! 

Much is made of the fact that King signed a paper saying 
that he knew of no immorality committed by Dr. Grissom. 
King swore that the part about immorality was not in the paper 
when signed by him, and in corroboration of this I want to 
read to you what Dr. Grissom himself swore to. (Colonel Wad- 
dell here read Dr. Grissom’s testimony as to the interview be- 
tween King and himself). 

Now, if King had already signed the paper saying he saw no 
immorality, why did Dr. Grissom afterwards continue to ask him 
if he said he had seen none? And why did King avoid 
the question? And, when King siid that he would “tell. 
about it when this thing blows over,’ why did Dr. Gris- 
som say, “It might be too lafe”? Why was he so anxious 
about getting a verbal answer to the particular matter about 
“immorality and not about any other part of the paper if he 
already had it down in black and white over King’s own signa- 
ture? Why didnot King say, “ You already have my statement 
to that effect in writing, and what are you asking me about it 
again for?” And why did he refuse to answer? And why did 
Grissom think he was bullying him? And why did he talk 
about killing King? The answer to these questions is apparent. 
It is that King, knowing there was nothing about immorality in 
the paper which he signed, and, being again subjected to ques- 
tions about it after refusing to answer in the first instance, be- 
came naturally indignant and demanded that Grissom should 
stop his questions. And here, according to Grissom’s own testi- 


20 


mony, occurred one of the most remarkable illustrations of the 

fable of the wolf and the lamb that ever happened. An em- 

ployee is sent for by the most absolute autocrat in North Caro- 

lina to come to his office, and upon his arrival there is plied with 

questions about that autocrat’s moral conduct. He is told there 

might be bloodshed, but declines to answer, and finally tells the 

autocrat that he had already asked the same question four times, . 
and he wanted him to stop, and thereupon the autocrat says, 

‘“ You are trying to bully me, and if you do I will kill you!” 

Why, gentlemen, it is true that Dr. Grissom, like him of old, is 

a man in authority, and saith unto this man “go,” and he goeth, 

and to that woman “come,” and she cometh, but the Czar of 
Russia himself couldn’t do an act of more absolute despotism 

than to threaten to kill a man because he declined to answer 
questions, especially if the man knew that a truthful answer 

would give mortal offence. 3 

Another hope that counsel seemed to indulge was that they 
had caught King flatly contradicting himself by saying at one 
time that there was no one else on the third floor of the build-_ 
ing at the time he saw Miss Burch and Grissom go into the 
matron’s room, and at another time saying that he saw the boy 
Jones peeping. 

One of the newspapers did report King as saying there was 
no one else on the floor, but the stenographer’s report shows 
that he did not say “floor” but “stage’’—that there was no one 
else on the stage but himself at the time—and Mr, King was — 
recalled to correct the newspaper report, and not to correct any- 
thing he said. ! 

Now, how are you going to get rid of Mr. King’s idee 
corroborated as it is by the boy (Jones) in every particular, cor- 
roborated by Mr. West as to the visits to the matron’s room on ~ 
two occasions under exactly similar circumstances, and corrobo- 
rated by Dr. Grisson’s own confession that he and Miss Burch 
went there more than once in the absence of the matron? Of 
course, if you are going'to start out with the proposition that 
everybody except Dr. Grissom has lied, you can get rid of it 


\ 


21 


very easily ; but by what right and upon what theory can you say 
this? ‘ 

I do not choose to repeat the details of King’s testimony as 
to what he saw. You all remember them, and you know that 
they are utterly irreconcilable with the theory that Dr. Grissom 
was making an examination. In the first place every physician 
on this Board knows very well that it is not only not at all neces- 
sary, but is not at all usual—in fact, that it rarely or never hap- 
pens that any lady, particularly a respectable single woman, 
should be subjected to any exposure, much less to such as was 
testified to by Mr. King, in order to discover what Dr. Grissom 
said he thought was the matter with Miss Burch, or to remedy 
it; and any physician who would be guilty of such brutality is 
unfit to practice that’ glorious and honorable profession. No, 
gentlemen, that suggestion, which is the only one offered to ex- 
plain this transaction, is palpably a false one. It will not do; 
it is too thin. There is no alternative for you. Hither My. 
King, a man of proven. truthfulness, whose character has not 
been and cannot be impeached, has come here and, without any 
motive for so doing, deliberately and maliciously sworn, to a lie, - 
or else Dr. Grissom is guilty of this specification, and if he is 
that ends this case. But there is quite as strong evidence, out- 
side of what King and the other witnesses swore to, and this evi- 
dence is furnished by Dr. Grissom himself and. by two of his 
own witnesses, namely, Mrs. Burch, the mother, and Mrs. 
Sechrest, the sister, of Miss Burch. I was touched deeply when 
that old lady, with child-like simplicity and faith in the story 
she had been made to believe, described her daughter’s condition 
before she came to this institution, and when she visited her home 
in December last, and when she had become insane. She and 
her daughter, Mrs. Sechrest, supposing that they were strength- 
ening Dr. Grissom’s testimony, said that Miss Burch was suffer- 
ing from the complaint described by him when she visited her 
home last December, and also when they came down here to see 
her after she became insane, and yet Dr. Grissom certified over 
his own signature, when Miss Burch was committed as an in- 


22 


sane patient, that she was not in that condition. The history 
of a patient’s antecedents, when committed to an asylum, is re- 
quired to be given with the most minute -details, and for the 
very plain reason that it is necessary to a full understanding ak 
of the case and its consequent proper treatment. Now, you all 
--know that there is no more common cause of insanity among 
women than a trouble of this kind, and it was, therefore, of 
vital importance, if she was then afflicted in that way, or even 
if she had recently been afflicted in that way, that the suver- 
intendent of the asylum to which she was sent should be ad- 
vised of it. And -yet when Dr. Grissom came to act officially 
in her commitment he said not one word about such a trouble, 
but, on the contrary, certified that her condition in that respect 
was “regular.” (Colonel Waddell here read the certificate). 

You will remember that, in order to avoid the suspicion 
which would naturally arise from the fact that he alone examined 
her, and that he alone visited her after her seclusion, he said 
that Dr. Burke Haywood was called in as consulting physician, 
and also Dr. Hubert Haywood, but mark the fact that although — 
he says he discovered her insanity on the last day of Febraary 
it was not until about the first of April that Dr. Haywood 
was called in; that Dr. Haywood never sat -more than a few 
minutes at a time, coming twice a week; that he made no exami- 
nation beyond feeling her pulse and only treated her medicinally. 
Mark, further, that although Dr. Grissom says that she had~ 
contracted the opium habit, yet after she became insane, accord- 
ing to Mrs. Burch, she suddenly exhibited a horror of any kind. 
of opiate, and even refused to take medicine that looked like it 
had laudanum in it. 

Gentlemen, since the world began, was it ever heard of that a | 
victim of opium or chloral, so confirmed in the habit as to become 
insane from its use, suddenly quit and refused to take it, even 
when administered by a physician? I refuse to swallow any 
such statement. The only evidence that was offered to show that 
she had this habit was the declaration of Dr. Grissom that the 
poor woman, after she became insane, and while suffering from 


* 


23 


acute mania, told him so, and the statement of her mother that 
she subsequently told her the same thing. And yet we are asked 
to believe that she suddenly so mastered this most enslaving of all 
habits that she not only stopped using any kind of opiate but 
exhibited the most intense aversion to it. It is barely- possible 
that some member of the Board may believe this, but, if so, he 
will be the only man in North Carolina who will. So much for 
the case of Miss Burch, wronged and ruined woman, over whose 
memory of the past the Hand of Mercy has drawn the curtain 
- of oblivion. 

The counsel who addressed you yesterday said the ‘manhood 
of North Carolina stands for Nora Burch, the widow’s daughter.” 


“J thank thee, Roderick, for the word.” 


The manhood of North Carolina does stand for Nora Burch, 
the widow’s daughter. It stands with crest uplifted, and right- 
“eous wrath blazing from its eye, and be the judgment of this tri- 
bunal what it may, its voice will soon be heard like the leaping 
of the live thunder amid the crags, and in the sound of that 
voice there will be terror for him who has dared or who shall 
dare henceforth to do the deed which robbed the widow’s daugh- 
ter of her most precious jewel, and then drove her into a mad- 
house. 


Counsel asked if she is to have no one to speak for her. Aye, 







the manhand of North Carolina stands for. Nora Burch, the 
widow’s d. Wehter, and it will “plead trumpet-tongued against 
the deep « fnnation of-her taking off.” Humbly claiming to 


represent some part, however small, of that manhood, I will 
speak for her, poor, afflicted and benighted soul, and I ask you 
in the name of God and of an insulted and outraged people to 
vindicate the wrongs of which she has been the victim, and by 
your verdict to set the seal of your and their condemnation upon 
him who in my heart and soul I believe to be the author of all 
her woes. 


24 


And now, gentlemen, I bid you farewell, and leave you to the 
discharge of the great and solemn duty which rests upon you, 
and for the performance of which fearlessly and justly in the 
sight of Him who searcheth the hearts of men, that great jury 
of the people of North Carolina, to whom the counsel have 
alluded, wait with absolute confidence. : ie 





Tey aN 





rn 





FEAR 
00041090648 

FOR USE ONLY IN 

THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLECTION 


UNCPS 52962 





